Ep. 1393 - Christian Conservatives Proven Right Once Again As Abstinence 'Trend' Gains Popularity
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media has discovered a hot new trend. It's called abstinence. For years the Left mocked Christian conservatives for promoting abstinence. Now, they're coming around, but for all the wrong reasons. Also, Jamaal Bowman and AOC team up for the cringiest campaign rally of all time. Donald Trump made two campaign promises over the weekend: one very good and one very bad. And, the wife of an NFL quarterback says that she convinced her now-husband to date her by hooking up with his backup. Why would any wife share a story like that?
Ep.1393
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 10% off your tickets to Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot at http://angel.com/MATT
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ZERO DEBT USA - Learn how to get out of debt today! Visit http://www.zapmydebt.com
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media has discovered a hot new trend.
It's called abstinence.
For years, the left mocked Christian conservatives for promoting abstinence.
Now they're coming around, but for all the wrong reasons, I'm afraid.
Also, Jamal Bowman and AOC team up for the cringiest campaign rally of all time.
Donald Trump made two campaign promises over the weekend, one very good and one very bad.
We'll take a look at both.
And the wife of an NFL quarterback says that she convinced her now-husband to date her by hooking up with his backup.
Why would any wife share a story like that?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Does your debt keep you tossing and turning at night?
It's like you can't get away from it.
The unfortunate reality is that our banking system is designed to trap you in debt.
These insanely high-interest credit cards and loans make it nearly impossible to pay off your debt.
Thankfully, there's a new way out of debt with Zero Debt USA.
You've heard me talk about pivotal debt solutions.
Well, now they're known as Zero Debt USA, and they have new aggressive strategies that can end your debt faster and easier than you thought possible.
Zero Debt USA can cut or even eliminate interest.
They will help find programs to write off your balances so you owe less.
They can stop those threatening phone calls and they can do all this without bankruptcy, without a loan.
Bottom line, they find every solution possible to end your debt permanently.
Before you do anything, contact Zero Debt USA first at ZappMyDebt.com.
Talk to them for free and find out how fast they can help you get out of debt.
That's ZappMyDebt.com.
ZappMyDebt.com.
Here's a side of the Clinton administration you probably don't remember.
Just a few months into Bill Clinton's second term, the federal government announced a major initiative to fund abstinence-only sex education.
As the LA Times reported back in March of 1997, Clinton's administration allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to programs teaching that sex before marriage is, quote, likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.
The Clinton-funded programs also taught that abstinence from premarital sex is, quote, the expected standard of human behavior.
So I'll say that again.
The Clinton administration said that abstaining from sex before marriage is the expected standard of human behavior.
Now, that may sound surprising now for obvious reasons.
This was not exactly an administration that led by example on that front, or any other front, frankly.
But at the time, especially in the pre-Lewinsky period, it wasn't a particularly shocking move.
From Reagan's administration onward, there had been significant bipartisan support in Washington for teaching young people to wait until marriage.
Democrats and Republicans agreed on this point, which is that hookup culture spreads disease, and it's bad, and it ultimately makes people unhappy.
This was not especially controversial, really.
As recently as 2010, CNN was running segments about how abstinence education was effective.
Watch.
What these researchers did is they took a group of 6th and 7th graders, African-American, living in urban areas, and they gave them sort of more traditional safe sex messages, gave one group safe sex messages, and then gave the other group more of an abstinence message, and then they followed up for two years to see who had sex.
So take a look at these numbers.
These are really pretty stunning.
The group that was told, here's how to have safe sex, well 52% of those ended up having sex in the two-year follow-up period, but only 33% of the abstinence-only group ended up having sex.
Man, it's actually not stunning at all.
That's exactly the results that you would expect.
But even so, the point is that this was a positive report about abstinence education.
Back in 2010, on CNN, and you just won't find many reports like that on CNN anymore.
Do a quick search on their website and you'll learn that abstinence-only education now is not evidence-based, quote-unquote.
The science has shifted, apparently, as we've seen so often.
Indeed, around the year that that report aired in 2010, federal funding for abstinence-only education began to wane under the Obama administration.
Donald Trump brought it back to an extent.
Then Biden limited the funding again, though not as much as many leftists were hoping.
Throughout all of this back and forth, pretty much the only group that has remained consistent on this issue has been Christian conservatives.
Because we have warned for decades that hookup culture will create many catastrophic problems in society.
We promoted chastity and abstinence before marriage as the only workable alternative.
And that's a position that we took based on scripture, based on thousands of years of human history, based on plain old common sense.
And for that, we were, of course, dismissed and mocked as out of touch and prudish and archaic and old-fashioned again and again over the past several decades, as we all know.
What's interesting about all this mockery is that now, at long last, many of the same people who dismissed Christian conservatives are now coming around to basically agreeing with us about this.
They're conceding that abstinence until marriage makes sense, actually.
The catch is that, as you would expect, they are coming to this conclusion for all the wrong reasons.
New York Magazine's The Cut just published an article outlining the new pro-abstinence trend that's now so popular among young people.
It's entitled, A Summer Without Sex.
Celibacy is all the rage right now.
The Cut reports, quote, Today, celebrities including Khloe Kardashian, Lenny Kravitz, Julia Fox, Kate Hudson, and Tiffany Haddish have touted the benefits of celibacy.
Melissa Febos is coming out with another memoir next year called The Dry Season about a year of conscious celibacy.
Other women are celebrating their dry seasons, too, even to the point of competitiveness.
The report continues, quote, This great abstaining comes amid any number of moral panics about sex, mainly related to young people.
They're texting instead of hooking up.
They're getting off the apps.
They're foregoing marriage and children.
They're de-emphasizing traditional romance and instead prioritizing platonic friendships like codependent but chaste Victorian pen pals.
Now, among the reasons for this great abstaining, according to The Cut, is that many women all over the world are drawing inspiration from the, quote, radical feminist South Korean 4B movement.
And women who participate in this 4B movement promise not to date men, not to have sex with men, not to give birth, not to get married.
And of course, attitudes like this are only making South Korea's population crisis even worse.
The country's birth rate is well below replacement level already and dropping fast.
That's not going to improve if nobody marries or has children.
But the media is presenting this as some kind of feminist victory for South Korea.
Even though South Korea may not exist for very long if this keeps up.
South Korea's great achievement is embracing its own extinction, we're told.
Take this article from Vogue, for example.
They just came out with a similar piece praising women for their newfound love of celibacy.
They wrote, "Is sex-free living going to be a thing?
Could it actually be liberating to take the sex out of every equation?
Are we entering a second wave of sexual emancipation in which one can simply opt out altogether?
Maybe this summer can be a mini-break from the near-constant awareness of our own sexuality,
of how or whether we attract a vacation from transmitting and receiving sexual triggers."
Will more of us be looking back on 2024 as the summer I turned sexless?
No more afternoon delights, no more holiday romances, a veritable celibacy in the city.
Now, it's kind of amazing to see Vogue discover that, in fact, women can opt out of having random sex with strangers.
This is a whole new level of sexual emancipation, they say.
No one's ever raised this possibility before.
No one has ever suggested that it's possible.
That you can actually just not give yourself away to any random dude who vaguely shows interest.
This is breaking news, courtesy of Vogue magazine.
Women have free will.
Can you believe it?
Several other outlets have been reporting on the same trend for more than a year now, in an equally shocked tone.
The Independent, for example, wrote last year that, quote, According to the Independent, quote, In recent years, self-love has been parodied as much as embraced, but the shift towards celibacy seems to have come from it.
The benefits from a period of celibacy are endless because ultimately it's about self-development.
That's a practice that will always provide some sort of enlightenment, regardless of your relationship status.
Imagine that.
The benefits from a period of celibacy are endless.
Again, across virtually all of the corporate press, This is being presented as something that's just now being discovered.
The Guardian, to give another example, reports that, quote, "Sex-positive feminism had its moment,
and now it has been replaced by voluntary celibacy." That's quite a headline from The Guardian,
considering it was just a decade ago that The Guardian was running articles with titles like
this, quote, "The moral case for sex before marriage." And reversals like this are everywhere,
all of a sudden.
In recent years, outlets like the New York Times, the Sunday Times, and many others have published lengthy first-hand op-eds written by authors who have committed to celibacy.
In particular, the Sunday Times declared that, quote, And it's important to note, if it wasn't clear already, that in virtually all of these cases, we're talking about unmarried people Abstaining from sex, abstaining from hookup culture in other words.
So this is the reboot, the trend, the bright new idea that the media is suddenly celebrating.
And the trend is not just a media creation, by the way.
Researchers at the University of Michigan have been tracking the sexual behavior of high school graduates for the past two decades, going back to 2004.
And they found that among 21 to 30-year-old males, abstinence rose significantly between 2008 and 2020, from 14.4% to 23.5%, an increase of nearly two-thirds.
from 14.4% to 23.5%, an increase of nearly two-thirds.
Among females of the same age, abstinence also rose, though by less, rising from 12.8% in 2008 to 16.5%
in 2020, an increase of just over a quarter.
Young adult males now have a considerably higher rate of abstinence than young adult females.
Now, there are obviously many factors that might explain this change.
A lot of it is likely attributable to so-called involuntary celibacy.
We know that even as celibacy is becoming more common, chastity is not exactly nearly as popular.
The proliferation of internet porn makes that pretty clear.
So, what's happening here in many cases, it seems reasonable to conclude, is that many single young people have given up on finding love and commitment.
They've despaired of ever forming any real romantic connections at all with anyone.
So now they're kind of retreating into celibacy like a form of surrender.
The point is that it's not an embrace of traditional values in most cases.
They've ended up at the same place, Right?
The Christian conservatives have always advocated, which is abstinence, if you're not married.
But they've gotten there from a place of despair and defeat.
In other cases, as in South Korea, people are apparently resorting to celibacy as some kind of a strained, misguided political statement.
Here's somebody going by the name Julia Fox, for instance.
Listen.
Also, celibacy isn't the right term because celibacy is like, you're not having sex for religious purposes.
So I'm not celibate because I'm like, you know, a follower of Christ.
I'm abstinent.
I'm abstaining from sex.
Because I felt like with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, that if they were going to take away our rights to I respect that.
She's also abstaining from eyebrows, it looks, by the looks of it.
Now, as twisted as that logic is, it actually makes sense on some level.
should really get on that because we hold the power.
She's also abstaining from eyebrows it looks by the by the looks of it.
Now as twisted as that logic is it actually makes sense on some level.
These people understand that abstinence until marriage is an expression of self-control
and they understand that there's a lot of benefits to a society where people practice
self-control.
But because they've rejected the old code of sexual morality, they've come up with these kind of bizarre, incoherent rationalizations for returning to it.
They have to pretend that Roe v. Wade is somehow relevant to whether they want to be sexually promiscuous or not.
Or they have to pretend that celibacy is part of some newfound sexual liberation movement.
That another wave of feminism is in progress, where women have discovered for the first time that they have free will.
But here's the point in all of this.
The so-called old code of sexual morality, the timeless code, that they rejected, the one that those Christian conservatives were promoting while being mocked and dismissed for it, that code was grounded all along In positive things, in the true and the beautiful, in human dignity, in love, commitment, chastity, the great virtues.
Right?
That's why we promoted it.
Those who repudiated that message for the sake of lust and instant gratification and hooking up with whoever, they now find themselves living sexless lives anyway.
So they chose the opposite lifestyle and they found it unfulfilling and harmful and destructive.
And severely depressing, which is precisely what Christian conservatives warned would happen.
This is what we told you.
This is why we said that hookup culture is bad.
The correct order of events is to find someone, one person, pledge your love and loyalty to them, marry them, and then be physically intimate with them.
In other words, we were right all along.
All along.
But yet, the funny thing is that in all the coverage of the celibacy trend, there is of course no acknowledgement of that fact.
There is no recognition that we had this whole thing figured out many generations ago, thousands of years ago in fact.
And unless all of these newly celibate people realize that celibacy is more than a trend or a political statement, then the satisfaction that they all say they're feeling right now will be short-lived.
The great abstaining, as The Cut put it, will give way to more unhappiness, inevitably more hedonism in short order.
It won't last because it's not grounded in anything real and timeless and anything sustaining.
The way that Christian sexual morality is.
The only way out of this cycle is to recognize why Christian conservatives have been calling for abstinence until marriage for so long, and to give them some credit for it, to recognize that we were right.
The religious right has been repeatedly and consistently mocked for predicting the future for the past several decades now.
We've always been right about everything.
It's time for everyone else to start listening.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
This year, the IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Handling this alone could be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted, providing you with peace of mind and financial security.
If you haven't filed in a while, need amended returns or are missing records, Tax Network
USA's expert tax preparers will update all your filings, eliminating the risk of IRS
enforcement.
Tax Network USA will evaluate your financials and create a settlement strategy to reduce
or eliminate your tax debt, putting it behind you for good.
Don't wait any longer.
Call my friends at Tax Network USA today for a complimentary consultation.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit tnusa.com/walsh.
That's 1-800-245-6000 or visit tnusa.com/walsh today.
Although I have to admit, I don't know if he was pretending or not.
This is still one of the great political questions of our age.
Would Jamal Bowman be dumber if he pulled the fire alarm in the Capitol building because he didn't know how fire alarms work?
Or is he dumber if he pulled it because he did know how they work?
Whichever is the dumber option is the correct option in this case, because we know that Jamal Bowman, whatever else he is, is extremely, extremely dumb.
And in case you had any doubt about that, here is Jamal Bowman on Saturday giving a speech, I guess we would call this, at a campaign rally.
Let's watch.
Bowman!
Bowman I agree with that last part.
We don't want U.S.
tax dollars to go to killing babies.
So, I mean, I'm fascinated that Jamaal Bowman has come out against Planned Parenthood funding.
So that's a surprise.
I don't know.
Aside from that, I don't know which part of that speech is the best.
Is it the part where he's waving a stool around in the air?
Is it the part where he shouts, we're going to show them who the F we are, which is supposed to sound cool and tough, but instead comes off as both dorky and very stupid, which is the worst of both worlds.
Like, if you're going to be a dork, at least be smart.
And if you're going to be, you know, if you're going to be dumb, at least don't be a dork.
But like, he does both, which is interesting.
So maybe that's the best part.
Maybe it's the part where he starts chanting his own last name, which you cannot do that.
That's a cardinal sin.
It's like giving yourself a nickname.
You just, you can't do that.
You can't start a chant for yourself of your own last name.
Or maybe it's the fact that he had one sleeve rolled up.
And this is a sitting U.S.
Congressman, by the way, okay?
Just to remind you.
And I know, I use this comparison all the time just because it's the world we live in, but that is, it's like, that is literally the president character from Idiocracy, okay?
Go and watch the scene where he comes out for the State of the Union address in Idiocracy, which is 300 years in the future, when the average IQ in America is 30 or something.
It's indistinguishable.
It's worth remembering that, and I was thinking about this when I was watching this clip, that 20 years ago, back in 2004, Howard Dean had his political career destroyed because he shouted the word, yeah, kind of awkwardly at a campaign rally.
Okay, and so just for any of you young kids out there, if you weren't around back then or you weren't old enough to remember it, I want to show you this, just so you can appreciate the point that I'm trying to make here.
What you're about to, we'll play it again, okay?
Classic, classic clip here.
But keep in mind, this is considered one of the great gaffes in modern American political history.
This completely upended his presidential campaign.
It destroyed his career because of this one moment.
Let's watch that.
You know something?
You know something?
If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that.
And you know something?
You know something?
Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina, and Oklahoma, and Arizona, and North Dakota, and New Mexico!
And we're going to California, and Texas, and New York!
And we're going to South Dakota, and Oregon, and Washington, and Michigan!
And then we're going to Washington D.C.
to take back the White House!
Yeah!
[crowd cheering]
He's all smiling and happy after that moment.
He thought he landed it.
He thought it was a great moment.
Little did he know.
Little did he know what the next 20 years of his life would become because of that.
Now, I remember at the time, you know, even though he's a jackass, obviously, even so, I remember thinking at the time that it was a little unfair for that to be treated the way that it was.
That it's just destroyed him?
No, it's a weird scream.
He's obviously someone, like any politician, he's trying to emulate, imitate, or rather, normal human emotions, but he's not a human.
So he's trying, like, this is him in his lizard brain saying, well, this is what people do when they're excited.
He's trying to imitate excitement.
And it comes out like this.
But at the time it seemed like, okay, yeah, it's weird, but why would this be such a gaffe, such a scandal?
And yet now I've started to think of it differently because now I long for the days when we had such high expectations for our politicians that if they did something embarrassing like that, it would be the end of their careers.
You know, there was a time when there were some standards, and one of them was, you know, if you really just make an ass of yourself in public, if you're that embarrassing, then your career's over.
Because now you compare that to, I mean, you compare that moment to things we see and hear from our politicians every day, compare it to the Jamal Bowman rally, okay, right?
In that 50 second clip of the Jamal Bowman rally that I just played, there were five moments that were far more embarrassing than the Dean's scream.
But we just accept it now.
We accept that we are governed by these inarticulate halfwits.
Speaking of which, speaking of inarticulate halfwits, AOC was at the rally also.
Here she is, just, let's watch her taking the stage.
She's very pumped up.
Let's watch this.
[MUSIC]
Let's go, Brooke!
[MUSIC]
Are we ready?
Yeah.
I can't hear you, Brooke!
[MUSIC]
Are you ready to fight?
[MUSIC]
I love how the audience isn't nearly as excited as she wants them to be.
There's also about 50 people there.
There was another shot, I don't know if we have it, but there's a shot from the opposite angle of the crowd.
They had sort of roped off because they were expecting, it looks like, thousands, and they got maybe 70, and half of them are journalists.
But she still comes out and she's... It's all just so nerdy and embarrassing.
She reminds me of like a...
I don't know, a seventh grade math teacher trying to get her students pumped up.
Are we ready, y'all?
We ready to do some algebra?
Get those math textbooks out!
Are y'all ready?
This is fun, kids!
I'm just kidding, of course, AOC can't do algebra, but you get the point.
There was also this moment with AOC and Bowman together.
I think this was after the rally, maybe, or before, who cares?
Anyway, here they are together.
Cease fire now, y'all.
That's what we're doing.
Cease fire now.
Let's get it popping.
The polls are open today.
The polls are open tomorrow.
Make sure you get out the vote.
Election day is Tuesday.
Let's go.
We need record turnout all across the district, especially in Yonkers, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Co-op City, and Eden Wall.
Let's get it popping.
Let's change the world.
It's the many versus the money.
We're going to win.
Let's go, baby.
We're going to win.
We're going to take on AIPAC.
I'm going to kick some Wall Street ass.
So let's go!
Stop the bombs!
He's got the towel over his shoulder, one sleeve rolled up, shirt half tucked in.
Is that even the style now?
That's like 1997.
I don't know.
I don't keep up to date on these things, but let's get it poppin'.
Do people say that anymore?
Do the kids say that?
Is that an expression people use?
Did they ever use that?
I was expecting him to drop a, it's the bomb, or like, raise the roof.
That's what I thought was coming next.
Like, my dad is 70 years old and white, and he would sound more natural using these phrases.
And you know, it would be bad enough if somebody like Jamal Bowman was authentically carrying on this way, like this is how he actually is, but it's even worse that he's pretending.
And these are the people we have leading the country.
All right, President Trump at a rally on Saturday made a big promise that I certainly hope he intends to keep.
Let's listen to that.
And I will shut down the Federal Department of Education and we will move everything back to
the states where it belongs and where they can individualize education and do it with
the love for their children. >> Now, so shut down the Department of Education was the big
promise, of course.
The Department of Education was founded in 1979.
There have been four Republican presidents... Four, right?
Yeah, four.
Am I miscounting?
Yeah, four.
There have been four Republican presidents since then, including Trump's first term.
All of them should have shut down this abomination, but they didn't.
So I really hope that Trump follows through on this.
Because the Department of Education is, at best, at best it is useless.
The most generous thing you can say about it, the most positive spin that you can put on it, is that it is merely useless.
It is merely a $70 billion waste of time and money.
It's not like the Department of Education actually directly runs the schools.
It can't, because education in this country is officially, in theory anyway, decentralized, which means that if the, what it means is that if the Department of Education disappeared tomorrow, the schools would all still be open, you know?
And the media and the left and Democrats, they, They'll fearmonger about stuff like this, and they will depend on the ignorance of the American public to think that, like, shutting down the Department of Education is the same thing as shutting down the public school system.
Which, we should also do that, but Trump is not promising that and isn't going to try to do it.
No, the Department of Education, like, you could shut it down.
The schools would all still be open.
They would be running as normal.
Literally nothing would change.
If your child is in public school, and they shut down the department, and they didn't tell anybody, you would never notice.
You would never know.
It's like so many other federal departments and agencies and everything else, that if it was wiped off the face of the earth, if it just disappeared, if it evaporated into dust, In an instant, and you weren't told about it, it would not affect your life at all.
And your child would continue along in school until graduation, and you wouldn't notice a single difference, not one.
But of course, again, that's the generous, positive way of looking at it.
But of course, we know the department is worse than useless.
It's a lot of other things, too.
It's unconstitutional, for one thing.
The Constitution does not, I know that nobody cares about this sort of thing these days, the Constitution who cares about that, but the Constitution does not enumerate education as a power that the federal government possesses.
The federal government has no authority to do anything with education.
That is a power reserved to the states.
So the department has no constitutional authority, no legal right to even exist, which I think is a pretty, which to me is a, you know, a pretty important point.
It also has no track record of success of any kind.
If you look at student academic performance in the year 1980, the first year that the Department of Education was operational, you look at student academic performance, you compare that to today, you are not going to find that performance has improved.
In fact, things are trending very much in the opposite direction, which means that, I mean, we've got kids that are graduating these days that don't even know how to read.
Which means that any argument for the Department of Education is automatically moot.
Because if this bureaucracy was helping kids, if it was improving education, we would see those results at some point over the past 40 years, and we don't.
And that's because the actual goal of the Department of Education is not to help kids.
It's not to help anybody learn.
That's got nothing to do with it.
The goal is to use money, to use a complicated web of funding.
And to impose an ideological agenda on the schools.
That's why it's there.
This is the one single function of the Department of Education.
It is to inject the federal government's ideological agenda into the school system, using manipulation and coercion and bribery.
It's a giant, like, bribery scheme, is basically what it is.
That's why it exists.
That's why it shouldn't exist.
And that's why it's a good idea from Trump to get rid of it.
So that's a good idea.
But he has also in the last few days had a really bad idea, which we will now take a look at.
Trump appeared on the All In podcast on Thursday where he said this.
Listen.
And you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest
around the world to America.
I do promise, but I happen to agree.
That's why I promise.
Otherwise, I wouldn't promise.
Let me just tell you that it's so sad when we lose people from Harvard, MIT, from the
greatest schools and lesser schools that are phenomenal schools also.
And what I wanted to do, and I would have done this, but then we had to solve the COVID
problem because that came in and, you know, sort of dominated for a little while, as you
perhaps know. But...
But what I want to do and what I will do is you graduate from a college, I think you should
get automatically as part of your diploma a green card to be able to stay in this country.
And that includes junior colleges too.
Anybody graduates from a college, you go in there for two years or four years, if you
graduate or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this
And you know more stories than I do, but I know of stories where people graduated from a top college or from a college, and they desperately wanted to stay here.
They had a plan for a company, a concept, and they can't.
They go back to India, they go back to China, they do the same basic company in those places, and they become multi-billionaires employing thousands and thousands of people, and it could have been done here.
Counterpoints, hell no.
Absolutely not.
This is not America First.
This is not the agenda that Trump should be pursuing.
It's not what the base wants.
It's not what America needs, more importantly.
Why would we do this?
Why the hell would we do that?
Now, this is not a new idea.
That's one of the many bad things about it, is that he is just Um, regurgitating what we've heard from the Republican establishment and the left for many years.
Staple the green card to the diploma, to the degree.
We've heard that many times, and so he's just, he's repeating that.
But let's think about this for a second, okay?
We're saying that if a foreigner comes to this country and attends a left-wing brainwashing camp, We will reward him with an automatic green card.
So we want more of these types in the country.
This is the solution to our problem?
To incentivize more foreigners to come here and be brainwashed.
Why would we want that?
You want more?
It's bad enough to have Harvard at all at this point, but you want more foreigners in Harvard and then coming here?
Why?
How does America benefit from that?
How do the American people benefit from that?
The average American family, right?
The old, the average American family sitting around the kitchen table, okay?
How is their life improved by having more foreigners come to America and be brainwashed by left-wing institutions?
You know, if we actually believe that going to college is important, Then the goal should be to get more American citizens into college.
That should be the focus, not importing more people from other countries to put them through college.
Now, you know that in my opinion, I don't think that it should be the goal to get more people in college, citizens or foreigners, because the university system is a disaster.
It's totally broken.
Most of the people who go into the university system come out the other end dumber.
Certainly dumber, but even worse, more beholden to and indoctrinated into left-wing ideas.
And that and being dumber kind of go hand-in-hand.
Most of these people that go to colleges, they're not learning skills.
They're not coming out with any skills whatsoever.
So, I don't think that there's any reason to be encouraging more people, citizens or not, to go to college.
But if it is your view that college is a positive thing, we want to get more kids in college, then the America First position is, let's figure out ways to get more of our kids in the college.
Not kids from other countries.
The fact that we're hearing ideas like this, to me, to put it mildly, it's very, very concerning.
Because again, if this is America First, then the term means nothing.
If America First is incentivizing foreigners to be brainwashed in left-wing indoctrination camps, so they can then go on to take American jobs, if that is America First, then what the hell does America First to what?
What do you mean?
Maybe we should clarify that when we say America First, we actually mean Americans First.
I don't know if we need to change the slogan, but it's Americans first.
People who are American citizens first.
All right, Justin Timberlake was arrested for DUI a few days ago.
And a few days later, the cop who made the arrest was outed by the media.
There are all kinds of stories now naming this guy and revealing information that I guess is supposed to make him look bad.
But to normal people, it actually makes them look even better.
So here's page six.
Headline.
Justin Timberlake's Gen Z cop who didn't recognize singer at DWI arrest identified as over-aggressive rookie.
Reading on, it says, the young policeman who was unaware he pulled over pop star Justin Timberlake for allegedly drunk driving earlier this week has been identified.
The 23-year-old officer is Michael Arkinson, reporting to a Sag Harbor, New York prisoner, according to a Sag Harbor, New York prisoner report obtained by the Daily Mail on Saturday.
A Long Island, New York native who was previously pulled over by the Gen Z policeman described him to the outlet as an over-aggressive rookie.
The individual said, I think Dustin Timberlake was a victim, a victim of over-aggressive Sag Harbor police.
This is according to someone identified only as Spencer in the story.
Spencer claimed that Arkinson, who reportedly turns 24 this month, previously stopped him for doing a U-turn when nobody was around, but ultimately let him go with a warning.
It was offseason and nobody was around, the driver further insisted.
It was a D-head move.
I felt like he pulled me over just for the sake of doing it.
Spencer reportedly came in contact with Arkinson again after he got pulled over for talking on his cell phone, which he alleged was on speaker at the time.
Quote, I thought he would give me a break and I was driving less than 25 miles an hour trying to get to the Y in East Hampton.
The disgruntled New Yorker said he ended up being hit with a $145 ticket.
Locals to Long Island's Ritzy Hamptons neighborhood have reportedly nicknamed Arkansas the Sag Harbor Nazi and a little redheaded.
Okay, so this is the story.
He's, so he's, this cop is overaggressive.
And the definition of over-aggressive is a cop who forces rich people to follow the law.
Apparently.
That's why, I mean, they doxed this guy.
For the sin of actually enforcing the law equally, and not allowing rich and famous people off the hook, they named this guy and they plastered his face all over the place.
So, you know, it's been obvious for a long time that cops just can't win.
They're in a lose-lose situation constantly.
The whole job is a lose-lose.
But if you weren't convinced before, then maybe this will clarify things for you.
Because again, this guy's name and face plastered all over the place.
He's being dubbed by the media a Nazi because he's doing his job and getting rich drunks off the street.
Like, what did you want him to do?
Is he supposed to just let Justin Timberlake go and drive drunk because he's Justin Timberlake?
Are we actually upset that he didn't give preferential treatment to Justin Timberlake?
But you know, but if he had pulled Justin Timberlake over and then said, oh, you're Justin Timberlake, well, never mind, sir.
As you were, just go and, no, go and get in an accident.
Go ahead, go hit a pedestrian.
It's all good.
You're famous.
You know, you had some popular songs 15 years ago.
So just go do what you want.
If he'd done that, he'd be condemned for that too, and rightly so.
So we're just constantly creating these situations for cops where No matter what they do, they're the bad guy.
They cannot do anything that does not result with them, where the result is not that they are condemned by some portion of society.
And as we've learned, it's a lose-lose situation.
They'll be condemned no matter what, but they will always be condemned the most for doing their job.
That's the way that it goes.
I for one think this guy's a hero.
I love the idea that this 24-year-old cop just came on the job, and he's enforcing every minor traffic law to the fullest extent for all of these rich liberals in the Hamptons, and they all hate him.
I think that's just great.
He's a hero.
He's an American hero.
You should give him a medal, this guy.
If you haven't heard, Jeremy Boring announced an exciting partnership with Angel Studios and Daily Wire Plus to bring you a brand new film called Sound of Hope, the story of Possum Trot.
It's coming to theaters this July 4th.
Last year, Angel Studios' movie Sound of Freedom made a profound impact by shining a powerful light on the child trafficking crisis.
And now Angel Studios is back continuing their fight for kids and Daily Wire is joining with them.
Son of Hope is the true story of 22 families from a church who adopted 77 kids from the foster system, sparking a movement to save vulnerable children everywhere.
We have a trailer for you guys so you can get a feel for what this movie is all about.
Take a look.
Are you sure these people want us?
I know they do.
You can call me Mama.
Oh, Lord.
No!
No, no, no!
If we can't wrap our arms around the most vulnerable, then what do we have?
Noise!
And the children can't take the noise anymore.
This is something that we must do.
Twenty-two families want to adopt.
The whole town wants kids now.
That's about right.
What's happening with Possum Trot could mean a huge change for the system.
I watched this film myself and I have to say it's incredibly moving.
It places strong family values at its core.
It's more than just a movie.
It's a call to action.
And right now, there are over 100,000 children in foster care that need homes, and they need our help.
Raising awareness is how you can help today.
The best way to do that is by seeing Sound of Hope in theaters.
This is exactly how we start a movement to change culture.
Sound of Hope is coming to theaters July 4th.
Tickets are on sale now.
You can get showtimes at angel.com slash matt.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
If you're a man in the public eye, it's usually not a good sign when your wife goes viral.
I suppose there could be a positive reason.
Maybe your wife was caught on camera rescuing a puppy from a burning building or something.
But usually it's not for a good reason.
And it certainly wasn't this past weekend when Kelly Stafford, wife of NFL star quarterback Matthew Stafford, Found herself going viral.
Kelly, for whatever reason, was being interviewed on a podcast where she, for whatever reason, decided to share an intimate detail about the couple's past.
So here she is talking about the early days of their relationship and how she managed to convince Matthew to finally commit to her.
Watch.
Our love story, I love that you think it's so great.
It started out horrible.
Tell me.
Well, met him, spent like the evening with him, did not let him touch me the first time ever.
He was like, this is fun.
I was like, oh, we're in a relationship?
This is great.
You know?
Because that's all I knew.
I didn't know casual dating.
Wait, so was he trying to casually date and you were all in?
Oh yeah, girl!
And then Brian didn't know what that was.
So all of a sudden, you know, we're kind of doing this thing and then he's like, oh, I see him in a bar one night.
And I'm like, what the?
Anyways, long story short, it wasn't that cute of a relationship at first.
I hated him.
I loved him.
I dated the backup to piss him off, which worked.
Oh, yes.
He was like, that'll do it.
He was the bad boy, too.
Matthew's so sweet and southern gentleman and all that stuff, and the backup was the complete opposite.
Yeah, yeah.
Ooh, and it upset him, which it worked, thankfully.
Yes.
But yeah, at first it was a little- Was that like the pivotal moment in the relationship where he was like, actually, you can't be with him.
You need to be with me.
100%.
So they lived in the same dorm, because athletes lived in the same dorm, and he would see my car there.
And so at one point, he waited and followed me out and got in my car and wouldn't get out.
You were like, this is so hot?
I was like, this isn't working!
I was getting out of my car and he was like, he's not right for you.
And I was like, you can't tell me that!
I was like, get the f*** out of my car!
So, in summary, they were dating at this point, but he was not as committed as she wanted, so she got involved with his backup in order to make him jealous.
And as mentioned before, that clip has gotten a lot of attention.
It's been viewed millions of times.
Most of the attention is very, very negative.
Kelly does have some defenders, though, who point out that she wasn't married to Matthew Stafford at the time, and technically she never said that she slept with the backup, only that she dated him.
Which is true, technically.
The thousands of people on social media claiming that Kelly Stafford admitted to sleeping with Matthew Stafford's backup are assuming that, based on the fact that she dated the guy and was spending time in his dorm room, some assumptions are outlandish, some assumptions are pretty safe.
This one would seem to be more on the latter end of that spectrum.
But anyway, it's better that the public doesn't know the specifics.
It's better that the public doesn't know anything about any of this.
But they do now, thanks to Mrs. Stafford.
And now social media is full of people making jokes about Matthew Stafford's wife hooking up with his backup.
And to make matters worse, for Mr. Stafford, some of the jokes are even, frankly, pretty funny.
So, why is the clip getting such a large and largely very negative reaction out of people?
Now, we could guess that Kelly Stafford didn't anticipate that level of attention, or that she would be so roundly criticized for sharing those details.
So why is that happening?
Well, I think there are two reasons.
First of all, I know that in Kelly's mind, this is just a silly story from ancient history.
Something she feels she can laugh about now, given that she's married to the man, they have four kids.
But even so, this is a story about manipulation.
And manipulation is bad.
Nobody likes to be manipulated.
Men in particular don't like being manipulated by women.
When a woman manipulates a man, she makes him feel emasculated, and betrayed, and disrespected.
The three worst things a man can feel in a relationship, all at once.
Now, a football player likes playing the game of football, but he doesn't like playing games in his personal life.
No man does.
This is the thing that infuriates a man maybe more than anything else.
Manipulation tactics, playing games, being dishonest, disingenuous, not shooting it straight, not just saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
Men hate that as well they should.
But here's the more important point.
Yes, her behavior was immoral and gross, but yes, it was also a long time ago.
She's been married to him now for many years.
Again, they have a bunch of kids.
That's why I would say the whole thing's a non-issue.
It's not worth discussing and none of our business to discuss.
If the story had been revealed by a very bored journalist who went digging into Kelly Stafford's dating history for some reason, okay?
If someone else came from the outside and said, hey, let me tell you what happened with these two, then we would all probably say, well, why are you talking about that?
What does that have to do with anything?
But it wasn't revealed that way.
No, instead, Kelly herself offered up this information.
She decided to let the world in on this embarrassing piece of their personal history.
Why?
Why does the world need to know that?
Why do you want the world to know that you slept with, excuse me, dated your husband's backup in order to make him jealous?
Like, it's shameful for you, it's totally humiliating for your husband, and now social media is full of random strangers making emasculating jokes about your husband.
Why put them in that position?
Why put your marriage in that position?
Now, this is something that many people these days seem to struggle with.
If you're married, You should want the public to view your spouse in the best possible light.
Right?
To put it in very modern terms.
Think of yourself as your spouse's brand manager.
Actually, don't think of yourself that way.
Forget I said that.
That's a terrible way of looking at marriage.
Better instead, just think of your spouse as the person... Well, how about this?
Think of him as the person you pledge your undying love, fealty, and devotion to until death do you part.
So, which means that you are still worried about your spouse's reputation.
That's one of the things that you should be concerned about.
So it's a very simple rule of thumb.
If you're about to say anything to or about your spouse in public, just ask yourself one question.
Is this likely to increase or decrease the amount of respect that people have for them?
And if the answer is decrease, Then simply do not say it.
Period.
Just never say anything that you know is likely to decrease the amount of respect that other people have for your spouse.
If the answer is, I don't know how people will react to it, then again, don't say it.
If the answer is, it will increase the respect people have for my spouse, then yes, go ahead and say it.
You should be looking for those kinds of things to say.
If you ever find in yourself the desire to embarrass The person you're married to?
Or if you find that you don't care that much whether they are embarrassed, then your marriage is deeply sick.
It is malfunctioning at the most basic level.
Now, I don't know if Kelly understood just how much her little anecdote would embarrass her husband, but she had to know that it wouldn't make him look good.
It would not increase the amount of respect people have for him.
He will not be happier with people knowing that information.
Like, she had to know that he's not gonna watch that podcast, or probably didn't even see the podcast, he's gonna see that people talk about it on social media.
There's no way that he would find out that she shared that story and say, oh, well, thank God, I'm glad she told people about that.
She had to know he wouldn't react that way.
And she said it anyway, which means that she's operating the same way that far too many people operate in their marriages these days.
